Independent review of the Financial Reporting Council s enforcement procedures sanctions
|
|
- Albert Collins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Independent review of the Financial Reporting Council s enforcement procedures sanctions Review Panel s call for submissions Comments from June 2017 (the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants) is the global body for professional accountants. We aim to offer business-relevant, first-choice qualifications to people of application, ability and ambition around the world who seek a rewarding career in accountancy, finance and management. Founded in 1904, has consistently held unique core values: opportunity, diversity, innovation, integrity and accountability. We believe that accountants bring value to economies in all stages of development. We aim to develop capacity in the profession and encourage the adoption of consistent global standards. Our values are aligned to the needs of employers in all sectors and we ensure that, through our qualifications, we prepare accountants for business. We work to open up the profession to people of all backgrounds and remove artificial barriers to entry, ensuring that our qualifications and their delivery meet the diverse needs of trainee professionals and their employers. We support our 188,000 members and 480,000 students in 178 countries, helping them to develop successful careers in accounting and business, with the skills required by employers. We work through a network of 100 offices and centres and more than 7,400 Approved Employers worldwide, who provide high standards of employee learning and development. Through our public interest remit, we promote appropriate regulation of accounting, and conduct relevant research to ensure accountancy continues to grow in reputation and influence. Further information about s comments on the matters discussed here may be requested from: Ian Waters Head of Standards ian.waters@accaglobal.com + 44 (0) Sundeep Takwani Director - Regulation sundeep.takwani@accaglobal.com + 44 (0) Tech-CDR-1574
2 GENERAL COMMENTS welcomes the opportunity to make submissions to the Review Panel as part of its independent review of the FRC s enforcement procedures sanctions. The key principles that we set out in this submission, and which guide our responses to specific questions, are underpinned by case law as follows: It is settled law that the purpose of sanctions issued by a regulatory body is not to be punitive but to protect the public interest - R (on the application of Abrahaem) v General Medical Council [2004] EWCH 279 (Admin). The Court of Appeal in Raschid and Fatnani v The General Medical Council [2007] EWCA Civ 46 made it clear that the functions of a disciplinary tribunal are quite different from those of a court imposing retributive punishment. The Court of Appeal went on to confirm, the panel is then concerned with the reputation and standing of a profession rather than the punishment of a doctor. The public interest must be at the forefront of any decision on sanction, and this includes the collective need to maintain confidence in the accountancy profession and the particular need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and performance. In Bolton v the Law Society [1994] EWCA Civ 32, the Court said the reputation of a profession as a whole is more important than the fortunes of an individual member of that profession. As the principal function of sanctions is not punitive but to protect the public interest, it follows that considerations which would ordinarily weigh in mitigation of punishment have less effect on the exercise of this jurisdiction. Therefore, the key principles upon which an effective sanctions policy should be based are as follows: As stated clearly in the Sanctions Guidance and Sanctions Policy, the primary purpose of imposing sanctions is not to punish, but to protect the public and the wider public interest. The imposition of a financial penalty is, in itself, inadequate, and should always be accompanied by a sanction such as a reprimand or conditions. In this way, the combination of sanctions makes clear the gravity of the breach, and the response considered appropriate to protect the public. As stated last year, in our comments concerning the FRC s proposed audit 2 Tech-CDR-1574
3 enforcement procedures, the Sanctions Policy should adopt a bottom up approach which, in our view, is best practice in relation to disciplinary matters. A bottom up approach to sanctioning assists in determining a proportionate sanction (or combination of sanctions), and helps to ensure that both proportionality and fairness are apparent. This approach also provides a means of identifying the appropriate sanction (or sanctions) to afford protection to the public, which might include a deterrent (to the party who committed the breach and to other parties). In order for a deterrent to be effective, and for the public to be adequately protected, publicity of the enforcement process and any sanctions imposed must be sufficiently clear and timely. Publicity should only be withheld in exceptional circumstances, and only to the extent required by the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016 (SATCAR), ie limited to the identity of the person sanctioned. With these principles in mind, it becomes apparent that the use of tariffs is inappropriate, as assigning a particular sanction to a particular breach as a starting point ignores the surrounding facts and circumstances, and undermines the need for proportionality and a bottom up approach. A tariff-based approach would be too restrictive, as the independent decision-makers must be seen to have flexibility, and the ability to exercise appropriate judgment. A tariff approach also does not align comfortably with the statement that punishment is not an objective of the Sanctions Policy. AREAS FOR SPECIFIC COMMENT: In this section, we set out our response to the specific questions set out in section 5 of the call for submissions. Question 1: Are the objectives set out in the Sanctions Guidance and Sanctions Policy satisfactory? If not, why not, and how could they be improved? We believe that the stated objectives are correct. We particularly support the statement, in both the Sanctions Guidance and the Sanctions Policy (Audit Enforcement Procedure), that [t]he primary purpose of imposing sanctions is not to punish, as punishment is a matter for the courts. Each document sets out the same four sanctions-related objectives. It is worthy of note that the first two objectives deterrence and protection of the public - are of a different 3 Tech-CDR-1574
4 nature to the other two. The first implies that a sanction must be significant enough to have a deterrent effect. Therefore, like the second objective, it protects the public. The second objective adds the possibility that a sanction may serve to prevent an individual or firm from providing a certain service (or services) to the public. The fourth objective to uphold proper standards of conduct is largely a product of the first two. This objective (as with the third) is only met if there is appropriate transparency, and the sanctions meet the other better regulation principles particularly that they are targeted, proportionate and consistent. Question 2: Is the Sanctions Guidance/Sanctions Policy satisfactory and fit for purpose in current circumstances? Broadly, we agree that the Sanctions Guidance and the Sanctions Policy (Audit Enforcement Procedure) are fit for purpose. However the approach to determining sanction makes no reference to a bottom up approach to determining the sanction (or combination of sanctions) that is proportionate and achieves the stated objectives. Panels imposing sanctions are under a duty to act proportionately. Any interference with a member s right to practise in their chosen profession will engage the right to respect for private and family life, which is protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was established in the case of Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11 that any interference in a member s professional standing and ability to practise must be no more than the minimum necessary to uphold the public interest. The Committee must strike a balance between the rights of the relevant person and the public interest. Acting proportionately requires panels to consider all the sanctions available to them in ascending order of severity. Panels should start with the least restrictive sanction, and proceed until finding the order that is sufficient to address the member s conduct or misconduct. This is the case whether the finding was made because of a need to protect the public, the maintenance of public confidence, or the need to declare and uphold proper standards. Therefore, we believe improvements to the guidance are required and, once completed, decision-makers should always be provided with that guidance. The improved guidance should not include any form of tariff or prescribed range of penalties. Assigning a particular sanction (or range of sanctions) to a particular type of breach undermines the need for proportionality and a bottom up approach. A tariff-based approach would impede independent decision-making, and the exercise of appropriate judgment. It may also obscure, to some extent, the fact that punishment is not an objective of the Sanctions Policy, and that the protection of the public is paramount. 4 Tech-CDR-1574
5 With regard to the sanctions themselves, we believe that a declaration that the statutory audit report does not satisfy the relevant requirements (paragraph 16(f) of the Sanctions Policy (Audit Enforcement Procedure)) is not a sanction. This is an administrative measure, which may be necessary to provide appropriate transparency and to protect the public; but it is a measure that is not dependent upon the outcome of an investigation or the decision-making process. We acknowledge that this measure is included along with sanctions under article 30a of Directive 2014/56/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( the EU Audit Directive ); but in the SATCAR (regulation 5(d)) it is combined with an order to forego or repay fees payable. Therefore, the Sanctions Policy would be clearer if the provision for such a declaration was removed from the list of sanctions, and explained elsewhere. Question 3: In connection with the matters set out in relation to question 2 above, given the type and range of case with which the FRC is concerned, adoption of a tariff or detailed guidelines would be difficult. Therefore, if respondents think some form of tariff or guideline would be appropriate, the Review Panel would welcome any observations on the appropriate form and content they, or some other form of guidance, should take. As we have already expressed our objections to any form of tariff system, we have declined to answer this question 3. Question 4: In imposing sanctions should decision-makers seek to place any particular focus on entities rather than individuals or vice versa? has consistently held core values of integrity and accountability. Therefore, we believe that the focus of an investigation and enforcement process should be on those seen as responsible the entity, an individual (or individuals) or both. There will be occasions on which a firm s systems or structures encourage, require or allow a breach, and the investigation and enforcement process must distinguish between such a systematic failure and the actions of a rogue individual. Nevertheless, where the focus is rightly on the firm the responsibility of the individual must also be considered, and vice versa. The FRC must stand willing to challenge a firm where the firm s systems have allowed a rogue individual to commit a breach, and also to challenge individuals who control or exercise significant influence within firms. Of course, the FRC cannot investigate and sanction a client company under its enforcement procedures. Its remit extends only as far as those involved in the finance function of companies. But where an audit firm (or individuals within it) are subject to 5 Tech-CDR-1574
6 investigation, the responsibility of the finance director in the client company should not be overlooked. Question 5: In relation to financial penalties should the FRC establish some starting point in respect of both individuals and entities? The starting point for a financial penalty must be zero. A bottom up approach to sanctioning allows a combination of sanctions, and it must be acknowledged that a public reprimand (or severe reprimand), for example, will probably have a greater deterrent effect than a financial penalty (which should not be set with the objective of punishing the entity or individual). Nevertheless, the level of any fine should be meaningful but proportionate. The appropriateness of the fine must be considered from the perspective of the accountancy profession, and also of the general public. Question 6: To what extent do current sanctions meet regulatory objectives? If they do not, why is that? For a regulator focused on improving standards and protecting the public, the range of sanctions available to decision-makers is satisfactory. However, Appendix 3 to the call for submissions illustrates that there has been a steady flow of breaches in recent years. This might suggest that the sanctions being imposed have been less effective in meeting the regulatory objectives than intended. We suggest that the Sanctions Guidance and Sanctions Policy could provide sharper alignment between the regulatory objectives and the sanctions available. The quality of decision-making will then be apparent through transparent publicity around sanctions, and a clear understanding of the need for publicity will also focus the minds of decisionmakers on being seen to meet the regulatory objectives. We believe that the importance of such publicity is illustrated in paragraph 19(vii) of the Sanctions Policy (Audit Enforcement procedures), which states that the sanctions approach should include: [giving] an explanation at each of the six stages above, sufficient to enable the parties and the public to understand the Decision Maker's conclusions. Question 7: In relation to financial penalties are they being set at the right level? It is not for to answer this question in such a way as to undermine the judgment of decision-makers. However, we have responded to other questions (and in our general comments) above with regard to key principles upon which an effective sanctions policy should be based. We should also reiterate here the importance of sanctions guidance and transparency throughout the enforcement process. 6 Tech-CDR-1574
7 There is a risk that a more robust sanctions procedure may simply be translated into higher financial penalties. However, the satisfaction of public demand in this way (if any) would be short-term. It is for the Sanctions Policy, and transparency of the enforcement process, to demonstrate that regulatory action taken is proportionate, well-reasoned and in the public interest, rather than simply satisfying the perceived demands of the public. Question 8: If respondents think that financial penalties are too low is this because: a) failures of the type covered by the procedures require greater censure than is currently given; b) they are not commensurate with the revenue or profit earned by accountancy/audit firms or with the impact of the failures being sanctioned; c) they are insufficient to incentivise either high quality audit work / compliance with rules, regulations and standards; d) they do not promote public confidence; or e) some other reason? It is not appropriate for us to respond to this question, given our response to question 7 above. We have focused our earlier responses on being clear about the principles for an effective sanctions policy, and the need for clear and effective guidance for decisionmakers, and effective publicity of any sanctions imposed. Question 9: What are the key elements in achieving effective deterrence? Within the structure of an effective sanctions policy, it is for the decision-makers to determine the level of sanction that is sufficient to provide an effective deterrent. However, transparency (including clear publicity of findings and sanctions), while not in fact a sanction, has a significant deterrent effect (through its inevitable impact on reputation), as well as demonstrating fairness. Therefore, appropriate transparency promotes respect for the regulatory process. The withholding of publicity should only be in exceptional circumstances. Within the range of sanctions available, the removal of the right to practise in certain areas and the imposition of conditions are primarily for the protection of the public. But 7 Tech-CDR-1574
8 these measures also act as deterrents, and they are perceived as such by accountants and auditors. Within a bottom up approach to sanctioning, these protection measures might be seen as a minimum level of sanction. However, their deterrent effect should also be assessed, especially when combined with a public reprimand, for example. In respect of financial penalties, the deterrent effect of financial loss alone is difficult to predict, but is unlikely to be significant unless the level of financial penalty is punitive. Apart from this being perceived as contrary to the sanctions objectives, such an approach could be seen as unfair, as any fines on corporations are ultimately borne by the shareholders. Question 10: Do current sanctions in fact promote or incentivise good behaviour and promote public confidence? We suggest that this is, in fact, an inappropriately worded question. It may be argued that no auditor intends to perform a bad audit, and so it is not the purpose of sanctions to promote or incentivise good behaviour. However, with regard to promoting public confidence, the Review Panel should try to establish whether robust and well-publicised sanctions are being imposed, and whether those who impose the sanctions are seen to be independent decision-makers. These elements combine to promote respect for the regulatory framework, which will serve to incentivise the regulated community to act diligently and appropriately. Question 11: Should there be greater use of non-financial sanctions such as: a) the imposition of conditions on practice or exclusion either of the firm or the practitioner from practice in particular areas or requirement for further training; and/or b) an order for some form of restitution? The non-financial sanctions suggested are already available under the Sanctions Policy and the SATCAR, although they have not been used recently. In employing a bottom up approach to sanctioning, non-financial sanctions could be used (perhaps in combination with financial sanctions) to provide more proportionality and better protection of the public. Guidance provided to decision-makers should encourage them to explore the options available to them. Under the Sanctions Policy and the SATCAR, a decision-maker may order a respondent to take action to mitigate the effect of a breach of relevant requirements. The other form of restitution available is the waiving or repayment of fees that would 8 Tech-CDR-1574
9 otherwise be payable. While the return of fees would usually be seen as fair and reasonable, care should be taken to ensure that such sanctions do not send the wrong message, as it is difficult to argue that mere restitution either acts as a deterrent or provides a measure of protection to the public. In addition, seeking restitution would usually be considered to be a civil matter, to be dealt with through the courts. Question 12: The Sanctions Guidance in support of both Schemes contains provision for a discount for admissions and/or settlement; see paragraphs 57 to 61 of the Accountancy Scheme Sanctions Guidance, as does the Sanctions Policy; see paragraphs 73 to 77. Are these provisions: a) operating satisfactorily; or b) inappropriate, and, if so, why? We feel that we are not close enough to the sanctioning process to be able to assert that the provisions for discounting a sanction are operating satisfactorily. In future, we should like to see detailed published reasons for the level of sanction, using a bottom up approach, which would then make the impact and reasonableness of any discount clearer to the public. However, in principle, some provision to be able to discount a sanction is appropriate, as it allows the process of determining sanction to demonstrate proportionality weighing the sanction against the potential costs of protracted investigations and hearings. However, care should be taken to ensure that the public interest of such discounting is evident, and that the deterrent effect (and the protection of the public) is retained (and seen to be so). Therefore, a discounted sanction should only be determined where appropriate insight has been demonstrated, and there should never be any suggestion that the discount came about simply as the result of a deal between the parties. Following the decision in Bolton v the Law Society (quoted above), any discount to a sanction should not be related to remorse or the personal circumstances of the individual (eg paragraphs 64 (j) to (l) of the Sanctions Policy (Audit Enforcement Procedure) 1 ) in such a way as to suggest that the discount is in respect of a mitigation of the punishment. 1 These paragraphs state that matters that should be taken into account when deciding the sanction or combination of sanctions to be imposed include: that a Statutory Auditor held a junior position; a Statutory Auditor s personal mitigating circumstances; that a Statutory Auditor or Statutory Audit Firm has demonstrated contrition and/or apologised for the breach of the Relevant Requirements. 9 Tech-CDR-1574
10 Question 13: Are there some sanctions which could usefully be imposed which are not currently available? We are not aware of any useful sanctions that are currently unavailable. However, it would appear that only a limited range of available sanctions has been used in recent years. This suggests that improvements could be made to the sanctions guidance. But we also believe that the sanctions-related objectives would be better met if the Sanctions Policy was to require a bottom up approach. 10 Tech-CDR-1574
Third country auditor deregistration procedures
Third country auditor deregistration procedures A public consultation issued by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) Comments from December 2016 Ref: TECH-CDR-1467 (the Association of Chartered Certified
More informationAccountancy Scheme Sanctions Guidance
Guidance Financial Reporting Council April 2018 Accountancy Scheme Sanctions Guidance The FRC s mission is to promote transparency and integrity in business. The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance and
More informationSanctions Policy (Audit Enforcement Procedure)
Policy Financial Reporting Council April 2018 Sanctions Policy (Audit Enforcement Procedure) The FRC s mission is to promote transparency and integrity in business. The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance
More informationIndicative Sanctions Guidance Note
Indicative Sanctions Guidance Note Introduction The CAA Global Limited Board ( the Board ) has prepared this guidance note for use by Adjudication Panels, Interim Order Panel, Disciplinary Tribunal Panels
More informationAdministrative Sanctions: imposing warnings and fines
Administrative Sanctions: imposing warnings and fines Introduction This leaflet provides an overview of the Bar Standards Board s (BSB s) use of administrative sanctions as one of the tools available to
More informationNRPSI INDICATIVE SANCTIONS GUIDANCE
NRPSI INDICATIVE SANCTIONS GUIDANCE Introduction Purpose of sanctions Warnings What sanctions are available Questions for the Panel to consider Mitigation and aggravating factors Guidance on considering
More informationIndicative Sanctions Guidance
Indicative Sanctions Guidance AAT is a registered charity. No. 1050724 Indicative Sanctions Guidance Contents Introduction... 3 Policy detail... 4 Sanctions... 5 Aggravating factors... 7 Mitigation...
More informationOctober Guideline to Disciplinary Committee for Determining Disciplinary Orders
October 2017 Guideline to Disciplinary Committee for Determining Disciplinary Orders HKICPA Guideline to Disciplinary Committee for Determining Disciplinary Orders 1. Objectives of the Guideline 1.1. This
More informationNursing and Midwifery Council: Fitness to Practise Committee
Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee Substantive Hearing Friday, 5 January 2018 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE Name of registrant: NMC PIN: Mr Razvan
More informationAppeals by the GMC pursuant to s.40a of the Medical Act 1983 ( s.40a appeals ) Guidance for Decision-makers
Appeals by the GMC pursuant to s.40a of the Medical Act 1983 ( s.40a appeals ) Guidance for Decision-makers Introduction 1 Section 40A of the Medical Act 1983 (as amended by Article 17 of The General Medical
More informationNursing and Midwifery Council:
Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee Substantive Hearing 6 March 2018 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 114-116 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4LH Name of registrant: Deborah Iris Gallagher
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC BANNATYNE, Ashleigh Registration No: 214342 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE JUNE 2017 - JUNE 2018* Most recent outcome: Suspension extended for 12 months (with a review) *See page
More informationTHE EXECUTIVE COUNSEL TO THE FINANCIAL REPORTING COUNCIL. -and-
IN THE MATTER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNSEL TO THE FINANCIAL REPORTING COUNCIL -and- (1) GRANT THORNTON UK LLP (2) ERIC HEALEY (3) KEVIN ENGEL (4) DAVID BARNES (5) JOANNE KEARNS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1. This
More informationGood decision making: Fitness to practise hearings and sanctions guidance
Good decision making: Fitness to practise hearings and sanctions guidance Revised March 2017 The text of this document (but not the logo and branding) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or
More informationIndependent review of the Financial Reporting Council s Enforcement Procedures Sanctions. Review Panel Report
Independent review of the Financial Reporting Council s Enforcement Procedures Sanctions Review Panel Report October 2017 Contents Page Section 1 Introduction 1 Terms of Reference for the Review 1 The
More informationThe Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6AU. Severe Reprimand and costs to ACCA in the sum of
CONSENT ORDER COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Patrick James Hartley Heard on: Thursday 22 June 2017 Location: Committee: Legal
More informationTHERE IS AN ORDER MADE PURSUANT TO S 240 LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS ACT 2006 FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF MEDICAL DETAILS.
THERE IS AN ORDER MADE PURSUANT TO S 240 LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS ACT 2006 FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF MEDICAL DETAILS. PLEASE SEE ORDER 5 ON PAGE 10 FOR FULL SUPPRESSION DETAILS. NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS
More informationYou are therefore liable to disciplinary action in accordance with Bye-law 5.2.2(d)
Disciplinary Panel Hearing Case of David Ager MRICS On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 Paper hearing By telephone Panel Dr Angela Brown (Lay Chair) Rosalyn Hayles (Lay Member) Christopher Pittman (Surveyor Member)
More informationGuide to sanctioning
Guide to sanctioning Contents 1. Background. 2 2. Application for registration or continued registration 3 3. Purpose of sanctions. 3 4. Principles in determining sanction.. 4 A. Proportionality... 4 B.
More informationEnforcement Proceedings Framework for Enforcement Sanctions and Costs
market bulletin Ref: Y4795 Title Purpose Enforcement Proceedings Framework for Enforcement Sanctions and Costs To inform the market about the new framework for setting sanctions and costs orders in Lloyd
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC MAYCOCK, Andrew Edward Registration No: 170502 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE MAY 2018 Outcome: Erased with Immediate order of Suspension Andrew Edward MAYCOCK, a dental nurse,
More information[2012] NZLCDT 23 LCDT 014/10. of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2. Applicant
IN THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2012] NZLCDT 23 LCDT 014/10 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 Applicant AND
More informationRe: Dr Jonathan Richard Ashton v GMC [2013] EWHC 943 Admin
Appeals Circular A11/13 14 06 2013 To: Fitness to Practise Panel Panellists Legal Assessors Copy: Interim Orders Panel Panellists Investigation Committee Panellists Panel Secretaries Medical Defence Organisations
More informationThe Enforcement Guide
Contents list The Enforcement Guide 1. Introduction Overview 2. The 's approach to enforcement 3. Use of information gathering and investigation powers 4. Conduct of investigations 5. Settlement 6. Publicity
More informationARDL RESPONSE TO : ACCOUNTANCY AND ACTUARIAL DISCIPLINE BOARD INDICATIVE SANCTIONS GUIDANCE TO TRIBUNALS CONSULTATION PAPER APRIL 2012
ARDL RESPONSE TO : ACCOUNTANCY AND ACTUARIAL DISCIPLINE BOARD INDICATIVE SANCTIONS GUIDANCE TO TRIBUNALS CONSULTATION PAPER APRIL 2012 PREFACE TO THE ARDL RESPONSE This response is submitted on behalf
More informationConduct and Competence Committee Substantive Meeting
Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Meeting NMC, 20 Old Bailey, London, EC4M 7LN 18 June 2014 Name of Registrant: Mr Matthew Robin Pitts NMC PIN: 93A0777E Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse
More informationIndicative Sanctions Guidance
Indicative Sanctions Guidance 1 Contents 1. Introduction... 3 2. Purpose... 3 3. General principles... 3 4. Sanctions... 3 In the case of all members, regardless of membership type... 3 In the case of
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC UPTON, Natalie Jane Registration No: 110087 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE JULY 2018 Outcome: Suspension for 12 months with immediate suspension (with a review) Natalie UPTON, a
More informationThe Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Incorporated. The Real Estate Agents Act 2008 Exemption Request:
JUNE 2016 RESPONSE OF: The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Incorporated ON The Real Estate Agents Act 2008 Exemption Request: Consultation Material for the New Zealand Institute of Forestry Te Pūtahi
More informationPart(s) of the register: Registered Nurse Sub Part 1. Eileen Skinner (Chair Lay member) Colin Kennedy (Lay member) Catherine Gale (Registrant member)
Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Meeting (CPD) Date: Thursday 13 August 2015 Nursing and Midwifery Council 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ Name of Registrant Nurse: NMC
More information[2015] EWHC 854 (QB) 2015 WL
Dr Saima Alam v The General Medical Council Case No: CO/4949/2014 High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division Administrative Court 27 March 2015 [2015] EWHC 854 (QB) 2015 WL 1310679 Before: Mr Justice
More informationConsultation. Complaints Regulations: Amendment to the Professional Conduct Committee s power to take no further action
Consultation Complaints Regulations: Amendment to the Professional Conduct Committee s power to take no further action Purpose 1. This consultation seeks views on proposed changes to the Complaints Regulations
More informationDISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Miss Emma Hoy Heard on: Monday, 15 May 2017 Location: The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators,
More informationConduct and Competence Committee Substantive Meeting Monday 17 October 2016 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE
Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Meeting Monday 17 October 2016 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE Name of Registrant Nurse: NMC PIN: Miss Vicky Cross 10I0617E Part(s)
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC JAMALI, Nisreen Registration No: 86173 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE September 2014 Outcome: Erased with immediate suspension. Nisreen JAMALI, BDS Karachi 2002, Statutory Exam
More informationIAN DAVID HAY Respondent
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2018] NZLCDT 10 LCDT 003/17 UNDER The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 Applicant AND IAN DAVID HAY
More informationPUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations. Medical Practitioner: Date: 03/12/2018. GMC reference number: Review - Misconduct
PUBLIC RECORD Date: 03/12/2018 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Bassel Hayssam EL-OSTA GMC reference number: 6046674 Primary medical qualification: Type of case Review - Misconduct Vrac 2000 Kazan State
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC LARKIN, Matthew Peter Registration No: 74917 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE DECEMBER 2017 Outcome: Erased with Immediate Suspension Matthew Peter LARKIN, a dentist, BDS Lpool 1998
More informationIn accordance with Rule 41 of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 the hearing was held in public.
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 27/11/2018-29/11/2018 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Stamatios OIKONOMOU GMC reference number: 6072884 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Misconduct Ptychio Iatrikes
More informationNursing and Midwifery Council:
Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee Substantive Hearing 23 February 2018 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ Name of registrant: NMC
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC MARQUEZ LOPEZ, Daniel Registration No: 260732 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE JULY 2018 OUTCOME: Fitness to Practise Impaired. Reprimand Issued Daniel MARQUEZ LOPEZ, a dentist, Grado
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC BAPU, Raisha Registration No: PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE MAY 2015 Outcome: Erasure and immediate suspension
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC BAPU, Raisha Registration No: 110944 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE MAY 2015 Outcome: Erasure and immediate suspension Raisha BAPU, a dental nurse, NVQ L3 Oral Health Care:Dental
More information3.2 The Code to maintain patient safety and public confidence in the profession.
OUTCOME OF FITNESS TO PRACTISE HEARING Case Number 2013/01 Name Paul John Tallon Registration Number 3560 Date of Hearing 5 th 6 th and 14 th June 2013 The Notice of Allegation The Chairman of the Statutory
More informationHealth and Care Professions Tribunal Service PRACTICE NOTE. Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired
Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service PRACTICE NOTE Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired This Practice Note has been issued by the Council for the Guidance of Panels and to assist those
More informationSANCTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
SANCTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENT November 2017 Introduction If a complaint is referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Teaching Council for an inquiry, a panel of the Disciplinary Committee consisting of
More informationThis application is made in accordance with the requirements set out in the Legal Services Board s Rules for Rule Change Applications.
Application made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority Board to the Legal Services Board under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the Legal Services Act for the approval of the SRA (Disciplinary Procedure) Rules
More informationGuidance for the Practice Committees including Indicative Sanctions Guidance
Guidance for the Practice Committees including Indicative Sanctions Guidance Effective 1 st October 2016 1 2 Contents 1 Introduction and background... 4 2 The Professional Conduct Committee (PCC)... 5
More informationBefore the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. C
Before the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. C2-01904 Licensed Building Practitioner: Rajendra Krishna (the Respondent) Licence Number: BP 112034 Licence(s) Held: Carpentry Decision of the
More informationCONTENTS PAGE NUMBER. INTRODUCTION 3 A. PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURE 4-7 SANCTIONS AND ORDERS AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL Solicitors Solicitors employees
08.12.16 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 A. PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURE 4-7 SANCTIONS AND ORDERS AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL Solicitors Solicitors employees PURPOSE OF SANCTIONS AND TRIBUNAL S APPROACH 5-6 HUMAN
More informationGUIDANCE FOR CASE EXAMINERS The purpose of this guidance 1. The General Optical Council (GOC) recognises that it is important that patients, registrants, professional and representative organisations,
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC LIMBU, Dino Registration No: 246153 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE AUGUST 2015 Outcome: Fitness to practise impaired; erasure with an immediate suspension order Dinu LIMBU, a dental
More informationEthics Committee Terms of Reference
Ethics Committee Terms of Reference Purpose 1.1 The purpose of the Ethics Committee is to assist the Board in the establishment, embedding and oversight of values, the ethical policy framework and ensuring
More informationThe Patent Regulation Board and The Trade Mark Regulation Board. Disciplinary Procedure Rules
The Patent Regulation Board and The Trade Mark Regulation Board Disciplinary Procedure Rules The Patent Regulation Board of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Trade Mark Regulation Board
More informationBefore the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. C
Before the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. C2-01903 Licensed Building Practitioner: Paul Kravenko (the Respondent) Licence Number: BP 128172 Licence(s) Held: Bricklaying and Blocklaying
More informationBefore the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. CB24832
Before the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. CB24832 Licensed Building Practitioner: Roshan Anthony (the Respondent) Licence Number: BP 101349 Licence(s) Held: Carpentry Decision of the Board
More informationNotice of Decision of the Northern Ireland Social Care Council s Conduct Committee
Notice of Decision of the Northern Ireland Social Care Council s Conduct Committee Name: Paula Curran Registration No: 2002171 Date: 30 January 2013 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Conduct Committee of
More informationGuidance for Disciplinary Committee hearings
Guidance for Disciplinary Committee hearings Contents SECTION 1 Introduction 3 SECTION 2 Introduction 4 The role of the Committee 4 The purpose of a substantive hearing 5 Overriding objective 5 SECTION
More informationThis case was reviewed on the papers, with the agreement of both parties, by a Legally Qualified Chair.
PUBLIC RECORD Date: 19 December 2018 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Hadiza BAWA-GARBA GMC reference number: 6080659 Primary medical qualification: Type of case Conviction/ Caution MB ChB 2003 University
More informationNursing and Midwifery Council:
Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee Substantive Hearing 16 July 2018 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE Name of registrant: NMC PIN: Part(s) of the register:
More informationHEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE*
HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE* *The Committee has made a determination in this case that includes some private information. That information has been omitted from this text. GRAHAM, Lisa Marie Registration
More informationPUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Medical Practitioners Tribunal. Dates: 16/10/ /10/2017
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 16/10/2017 18/10/2017 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Johannes Christiaan Hermanus BASSON GMC reference number: 4056885 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Misconduct
More informationICAEW Regulatory Board
ICAEW Regulatory Board TERMS OF REFERENCE Authority 1. The ICAEW Regulatory Board (IRB) derives its authority from Council. 2. ICAEW is a unitary body. However, to ensure a greater degree of independence,
More informationCorporate Governance Statement
Corporate Governance Statement INTRODUCTION The board of directors (the Board ) of Driver Group PLC (the Company ) recognises the importance of good corporate governance and has elected to adopt the QCA
More informationLegal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014
Examinable excerpts of Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 as at 10 April 2018 Schedule 1 Legal Profession Uniform Law 169 Objectives PART 4.3 LEGAL COSTS Division 1 Introduction The objectives
More informationPUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations. Medical Practitioner: Dates: 26/07/ /07/2018. GMC reference number: Tyne
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 26/07/2018-27/07/2018 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Neil Ineson GMC reference number: 2431350 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Conviction / Caution MB BS 1978 University
More informationRules Notice Request for Comment
Rules Notice Request for Comment Dealer Member Rules and UMIR Please distribute internally to: Legal and Compliance Operations Senior Management Comments Due By: May 23, 2018 Contact: Elsa Renzella Senior
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC CROOK, Stacey Registration No: 199655 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE AUGUST 2017 Outcome: Erased with Immediate Suspension This case was heard in parallel with the case of MOLLOY,
More informationBefore the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. CB Licence(s) Held: Carpentry and Site AOP 1
Before the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. CB24522 Licensed Building Practitioner: Sheng Yuan Lin (the Respondent) Licence Number: BP 108707 Licence(s) Held: Carpentry and Site AOP 1 Decision
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC AYOR-AYO, Auma Hilda Registration No: 198660 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE AUGUST 2017 Outcome: Suspended for 12 months with immediate suspension (with a review) Auma Hilda AYOR-AYO,
More informationQ1) Do you agree or disagree with the Council s approach to the distinction between a principle and a purpose of sentencing?
Name Scottish Hazards Publication consent Publish response with name Q1) Do you agree or disagree with the Council s approach to the distinction between a principle and a purpose of sentencing? Agree We
More informationINDICATIVE SANCTIONS GUIDANCE DRAFT
INDICATIVE SANCTIONS GUIDANCE DRAFT Contents Purpose of document... 2 What is this document about?... 2 Who is this document for?... 3 1. Part 1: Fitness to Practise stages... 3 Investigation... 3 Scrutiny
More informationPUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations. Medical Practitioner: Date: 22/10/2018. GMC reference number: Medyczny. Review - Misconduct
PUBLIC RECORD Date: 22/10/2018 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Shazia Akram GMC reference number: 7094045 Primary medical qualification: Type of case XXX Review - Misconduct Lekarz 2010 Warszawski Uniwersytet
More informationGovernance. Financial Reporting Council. October Governance Bible
Governance Financial Reporting Council October 2017 Governance Bible The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is the UK s independent regulator responsible for promoting high quality corporate governance
More informationTHE CHARTERED INSURANCE INSTITUTE Disciplinary Procedure Rules
THE CHARTERED INSURANCE INSTITUTE Disciplinary Procedure Rules Part 1 General Authority and Purpose 1.1 These Rules are made pursuant to The Chartered Insurance Institute Disciplinary Regulations 2015.
More informationConduct & Competence Committee. Substantive Meeting. 20 October Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, London E20 1EJ
Conduct & Competence Committee Substantive Meeting 20 October 2016 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, London E20 1EJ Registrant: NMC PIN: Sean Michael Ridout 10H3375E Part(s) of the register:
More informationRe: JAMES DONALD WOOSTER. Leon Getz, Chair, Robert C. Blanchard and Daniel Siu. Barbara Lohmann for the Investment Dealers Association
IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINE HEARING PURSUANT TO BY-LAW 20 OF THE INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA PACIFIC DISTRICT COUNCIL Re: JAMES DONALD WOOSTER Panel: Appearances: Leon Getz, Chair, Robert
More informationNursing and Midwifery Council:
Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee Substantive Hearing 26 January 2018 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE Name of Registrant Nurse: Mr Richard Imperio NMC
More informationPUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Medical Practitioners Tribunal
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 01/11/2017 03/11/2017 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Mohamed AMRANI GMC reference number: 3419692 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Conviction / Caution MD 1987 Universite
More informationSocial Workers Registration Legislation Bill
Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill Government Bill As reported from the Social Services and Community Committee Recommendation Commentary The Social Services and Community Committee has examined
More informationPUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Medical Practitioners Tribunal. Dates: 13/11/ /11/2017 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Katy MCALLISTER
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 13/11/2017 15/11/2017 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Katy MCALLISTER GMC reference number: 7042366 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Conviction / Caution MB ChB 2009
More informationNotice of Decision of the Northern Ireland Social Care Council s Conduct Committee
Notice of Decision of the Northern Ireland Social Care Council s Conduct Committee Name: Radu Nasca SCR No: 6005361 Date: 22 August 2014 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Conduct Committee of the Northern
More informationUniversiteto. That being registered under the Medical Act 1983, as amended:
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 29/01/2018 30/01/2018 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Ali ISMAIL GMC reference number: 6168323 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Misconduct Gydytojas 2006 Kauno Medicinos
More informationDetermination of the Disciplinary Tribunal of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand 27 October 2016
Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand 27 October 2016 Case Number: D-1138 Member: Ian Richard Hall, CA Hearing Date: 27 October 2016 Tribunal: Legal
More informationNon-compliance hearings guidance for medical practitioners tribunals
Non-compliance hearings guidance for medical practitioners tribunals Introduction 1 The aim of this guidance is to promote consistency and transparency in decision making relating to non-compliance hearings.
More informationJUDGMENT ON AN AGREED OUTCOME
SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No. 11714-2017 BETWEEN: SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY Applicant and ROBERT NIGEL WIGGANS Respondent Before: Mr J. C. Chesterton
More information107 ADOPTED RESOLUTION
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 1 2 3 RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association reaffirms the black letter of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions as adopted February, 1986, and amended February 1992,
More informationDelegated powers policy
Delegated powers policy Revised September 2013 1 Contents Introduction... 3 The Association of Accounting Technicians... 3 The compliance framework and procedures of AAT... 3 Compliance framework... 4
More informationSocial Workers Registration Legislation Bill
Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill Government Bill Explanatory note General policy statement This Bill is an omnibus Bill introduced under Standing Order 263. That Standing Order states that
More informationThe Law Society of British Columbia In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c.9 and a hearing concerning. Clayton Bruce Williams
2010 LSBC 31 Report issued: December 22, 2010 Citation issued: August 5, 2010 The Law Society of British Columbia In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c.9 and a hearing concerning Clayton
More informationNursing and Midwifery Council: Fitness to Practise Committee Substantive Hearing
Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee Substantive Hearing 1 December 2017 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE Name of registrant: NMC PIN: Part(s) of the register:
More informationThe Intellectual Property Regulation Board (incorporating The Patent Regulation Board and the Trade Mark Regulation Board)
The Intellectual Property Regulation Board (incorporating The Patent Regulation Board and the Trade Mark Regulation Board) Final Draft Disciplinary Procedure Rules The Patent Regulation Board of the Chartered
More informationConduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing
Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Hearing 22 July 2016 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE Name of Registrant Nurse: NMC PIN: Nomathemba Amanda Primrose Socikwa 10G0506E
More informationDETERMINATION ON THE FACTS AND IMPAIRMENT - 25/10/2017
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 25 to 26 October 2017 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Swathi Deepak PAI GMC reference number: 5202874 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Misconduct MB BS 1998 Manipal
More informationThat being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended):
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 09/11/2017 10/11/2017 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Andrew MACKENZIE GMC reference number: 6134691 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Conviction / Caution MB ChB 2006
More informationNew Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants RULES OF THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS EFFECTIVE 26 JUNE 2017 CONTENTS
New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants RULES OF THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS EFFECTIVE 26 JUNE 2017 CONTENTS Rule no Page no 1. INTERPRETATION...1 2. FUNCTIONS...2 3. MEMBERSHIP...3
More informationThe Accountancy Scheme
Scheme Financial Reporting Council 1 June 2014 The Accountancy Scheme The FRC is responsible for promoting high quality corporate governance and reporting to foster investment. We set the UK Corporate
More informationAssociation of Financial Advisers Limited
Association of Financial Advisers Limited By-Laws of The Association of Financial Advisers Limited 3 August 2017 A COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE NOT HAVING A SHARE CAPITAL Association of Financial Advisers
More informationEducation Legislation Amendment (Staff) Act 2006 No 24
New South Wales Education Legislation Amendment (Staff) Act 2006 No 24 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Teaching Service Act 1980 No 23 2 4 Amendment of Technical and Further
More informationHELEN MONCKTON Practitioner
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2014] NZLCDT 51 LCDT 006/14 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN WAIKATO BAY OF PLENTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 Applicant
More informationPUBLIC RECORD. Record of Determinations Medical Practitioners Tribunal. Dates: 29/06/2018. Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Dariusz FAFERA
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 29/06/2018 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Dariusz FAFERA GMC reference number: 7396655 Primary medical qualification: Type of case Review - Non-compliance with an English language
More information